Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Srinivasa Rao vs Baburao And Anr. on 31 May, 1968 cites

Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954

In opposition Sri Murlidhar Rao relying on a decision in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, , submitted that a decree made by the appellate Court in the appeal, which was not maintainable was a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it was sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings, A defect of jurisdiction whether pecuniary or territorial, or whether it was in respect of the subject matter of the action, would strike at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect could not be cured even by consent of parties. This question would call for a decision only in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that the appeal before the learned Civil Judge was not maintainable under Rule 1 (s) of Order 43, C.P.C. In the view I am disposed to take on the question of maintainability of the appeal, any further discussion on this aspect of the controversy is rendered unnecessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1029 - Full Document

Bipan Lal Muthiala vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 January, 1957

23. The next contention urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the trial Court for the appointment of a receiver. Reliance in this behalf is placed on a decision in Bipan Lal v. I. T. Commr., . The argument is that the appointment of a receiver is a matter, which falls within the discretionary powers of a Court and as such is not ordinarily reviewable on appeal except to correct a clear and manifest abuse of justice. Sri K. Jagannatha Shetty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, did not dispute this proposition. But, what he submitted was that a trial Court in the exercise of its discretionary power relating to the appointment of a receiver, had clearly overlooked the several relevant circumstances or at any rate, assumed certain facts in favour of such an appointment of receiver. His contention was that the two elements to be considered in all cases where an appointment of a receiver was sought were that the existence of reasonable probability that the plaintiff asking for the appointment of a receiver would ultimately succeed in obtaining the general relief sought for in his suit and that the property in controversy would be wasted or destroyed unless a receiver was appointed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kshitish Chandra Acharjya Choudhry And ... vs Raja Janakinath Roy And Ors. on 10 June, 1931

The Calcutta decision referred to by him is one reported in Kshitish Chandra Achariya Choudhry v. Raja Janakinath Roy, AIR 1932 Cal 194. Sri K. Jagannatha Shetty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, placed strong reliance on certain decisions of the High Courts of Madras, Patna, Lahore and Travancore and Cochin in support of the contrary view.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1